Investigators Seek Motive Behind Tennessee Shooting Rampage

[PanzerJaeger]

What could it be?

If, by some crazy twist of fate, it is determined that this was yet another radicalized muslim, the juxtaposition versus the Charleston shooting will be fascinating. The latter yielded an onslaught of criticism against the supposed southern culture that spawned the shooter, with calls - including from members of this forum - for a wholesale eradication of any and all cultural institutions that remain from the Confederacy. Will the same cultural critique be directed towards Islam in the US after so many attacks, and so many more failed attempts? I'll be crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.

[Strike For The South]

Ban Islam in the goverment.

[Brenus]

Ban all religions in Government.

[Fragony]

There is only one thing that has nothing to with it

[Montmorency]

Why criticize "Islam in the USA"?

Criticism regarding radicalization must rightly target the entire Islamic world, as well as the European world, if it pretends to anything other than peevish xenophobia.

Disingenuous comparison.

[Sarmatian]

What could it be?

If, by some crazy twist of fate, it is determined that this was yet another radicalized muslim, the juxtaposition versus the Charleston shooting will be fascinating. The latter yielded an onslaught of criticism against the supposed southern culture that spawned the shooter, with calls - including from members of this forum - for a wholesale eradication of any and all cultural institutions that remain from the Confederacy. Will the same cultural critique be directed towards Islam in the US after so many attacks, and so many more failed attempts? I'll be crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.

The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam, while the core component of Southern rebellion was slavery.

Protecting state rights has been an ongoing thing in the US of A since the independence and projecting it on the rebellion is trying to ennoble what was really about treason and slavery.

[rory_20_uk]

A lovely strawman in the initial post.

Banning the ISIS flag would be a similar comparison as opposed to all reference to a religion - or along with the Confederate flag we'd be banning Christianity which the South managed to warp to view an entire race as being subhuman - from love they neighbour to own they neighbour.

[Montmorency]

Huh, the shooter was also a handsome kid.

Hideous beard he grew since then.

[HopAlongBunny]

Rather, what motivates anyone to murder on behalf of a "cause"?

[Fragony]

Maybe, just maybe, it isn't true that there is only one thing that doesn't has anything to do with it, and that the islam has everything to do with it, despite islamapoligists saying that simply isn't true. Ignoring that it is. What was his motive, I really wonder lol of course not islam, inconceivable. If all of us were so bad at getting hints we would be extinct in a hundreds years because nobody would get laid.

[PanzerJaeger]

The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam

Are you running for political office, or does this tired cliche actually still resonate in some parts of the world?

All I'm saying is that in the US we just spent the last month raging against a culture that hasn't existed for over 150 years, but there's been not a critical word about Islamic culture written in mainstream media outlets. If we can connect Dylann Roof's slaughter in Charleston to Robert E Lee's slaughter of Union soldiers at Chancellorsville, surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

[Brenus]

"The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam, while the core component of Southern rebellion was slavery. " Not often I agree with Pz, but the Islamic Terrorists are not perverting Islam. They just read what is written and apply.
So, for me there is no difference between the pro-slavery South (which, may I remind, based the acceptance of slavery in the Bible) and ISIS.
Tenets of Christianity became acceptable by civilised societies because Christianity abandoned most of the most offensive and brutal parts of its writings, thanks to the Enlightenment.
Religions by definition are racists/segregationists, are against universal human right (as rights to be saved is reserved to the believers of the said faith), and as based on bronze-age tribes ideologies and actions, have nothing against genocides, invasions of someone else territories under pretext God(s) give it to them, rapes, slaughters and slavery. All these things we now agree are not nice.

[Papewaio]

surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

I agree.


I preferred the country the old superman came from Truth, Justice and the American way wasn't so ironic...

[Sarmatian]

Are you running for political office, or does this tired cliche actually still resonate in some parts of the world?

I would have expected this kind of answer from rednecks, but I generally take that most people here do have a passion and a basic understanding of history. Those with basic understanding of history have no excuse for not knowing how tolerant and progressive Islam can be. The west didn't become more tolerant because of Christianity, but rather when we stopped to listening those weird guys in robes. When we thought religion was important we committed genocides, exterminated entire cultures and happily slaughtered each other to decide whose branch of Christianity was the coolest.

Islam is in many ways a copy/paste of Judaism and Christianity, sprinkled with some Arab Paganism.
Everything is there, from hate the unbeliever to trust blindly in merciful God and he will be there for you. Don't trust in him and you'll go to hell. God is almighty, all-powerful and omnipresent.

And, as with Christianity, it's all about the interpretation. Does it say anywhere in the Quran that women have to be covered up completely? No - it says that one shouldn't desire another man's woman. Men being men, they interpreted it in a way that suits them - let's transfer responsibility to women, and make them cover up, 'cause I really can't resist me some of that shapely tushy, m'kay...

Muslim societies can be secular. For proof, I point out overwhelmingly Muslim but mostly secular and tolerant ex Soviet central Asian republics. Kazakhstan is a much better example than Turkey in this regard, as it has a far greater ethnic and confessional diversity, yet there is almost no violence. The little violence that happens is directed against Jehovah Witnesses and similar groups which actively proselytize.

In the end, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Even if there is a 100,000 standing ready to commit terrorist acts, that is still less than 0,001%. So, I believe my comment about "the perverted version of Islam" is entirely rational, accurate and germane.

All I'm saying is that in the US we just spent the last month raging against a culture that hasn't existed for over 150 years, but there's been not a critical word about Islamic culture written in mainstream media outlets. If we can connect Dylann Roof's slaughter in Charleston to Robert E Lee's slaughter of Union soldiers at Chancellorsville, surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

It was not about southern culture but about specific symbols associated first and foremost with racism, slavery and rebellion. Removing those symbols wasn't about eradicating the southern culture, just like removing the swastika wasn't really about eradicating German culture.

I assume there's more to southern culture than the ACW, and, if there isn't, than it should be eradicated.

[Fragony]

How about a deathtoll's daily, today over 20 in Turkey, yesterday over 30 in Nigeria, the day before that, oh screw it it's too much work to keep track, what was it, 200 or so I forgot where, somewhere in Africa. Islam is not a religion it's a mental disorder

edit, forgot, yesterday also more than a hundred in Baghdad, so easy to forget if things are a daily routine

[Sarmatian]

How about a deathtoll's daily, today over 20 in Turkey, yesterday over 30 in Nigeria, the day before that, oh screw it it's too much work to keep track, what was it, 200 or so I forgot where, somewhere in Africa. Islam is not a religion it's a mental disorder

edit, forgot, yesterday also more than a hundred in Baghdad, so easy to forget if things are a daily routine

All terrorist attacks put together since Islam was founded didn't cause as many civilian deaths as American invasion of Iraq. Or Muslim indiscriminately murdered by European colonial powers.

[Gilrandir]

The west didn't become more tolerant because of Christianity, but rather when we stopped to listening those weird guys in robes. When we thought religion was important we committed genocides, exterminated entire cultures and happily slaughtered each other to decide whose branch of Christianity was the coolest.

The USSR stopped listening to guys in robes and started exterminating them, especially in 1920-1930s. It also can boast of ethnic cleansings (= removing whole nations from their homes) and slaughtering the dissident. So moving away from religion doesn't automatically make a society more tolerant.

Muslim societies can be secular. For proof, I point out overwhelmingly Muslim but mostly secular and tolerant ex Soviet central Asian republics. Kazakhstan is a much better example than Turkey in this regard, as it has a far greater ethnic and confessional diversity, yet there is almost no violence.

I don't think Khazakhstan is a good example, because after the collapse of the USSR there were ethnic tensions between the Turkic and the Slavic communities which eventually made thousands of the latter leave the country for Russia and Ukraine.
Now such things are not heard about any more, yet in case Russia (Zhirinovsky already does it on occasion) propels its interest ethnic tensions (possibly with a religious admixture - if ISIS takes a hand) will be awake in no time.

[Sarmatian]

The USSR stopped listening to guys in robes and started exterminating them, especially in 1920-1930s. It also can boast of ethnic cleansings (= removing whole nations from their homes) and slaughtering the dissident. So moving away from religion doesn't automatically make a society more tolerant.

Sure, instead of religion we can pervert an ideology. The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with crusades, as Frags says, we can look at Thirty Years War, a nice pan European conflict and in reality a mass slaughter of those following different branch of Christianity.

I don't think Khazakhstan is a good example, because after the collapse of the USSR there were ethnic tensions between the Turkic and the Slavic communities which eventually made thousands of the latter leave the country for Russia and Ukraine.
Now such things are not heard about any more, yet in case Russia (Zhirinovsky already does it on occasion) propels its interest ethnic tensions (possibly with a religious admixture - if ISIS takes a hand) will be awake in no time.

There's bound to be some tensions in a collapsing country with a ruined economy. It's a wonder it haven't been worse and it's kind of a testament to my point.

And yet it was the British who did most in the history of mankind to end the practice of slavery around the world, and a large proportion of the former British empire still retains cultural and in some cases even political links with their former imperial oppressors.

So? Russia subjugated and oppressed all Muslim states in central Asia, and they keep cultural and political links and the mixed population lives generally in peace.

It doesn't really make sense to hold a grudge indefinitely or we'd never get anything done.

And it's notable that workable liberal democracies are more prevalent in areas formerly oppressed by the nasty British.

Well, "workable" isn't really easily definable, but the proper democracies built on western models today are those countries that were pretty much empty when British appeared, like Australia, Canada or USA.

In all other places, where there's been a big population, British track record isn't that great. Even in India there are massive human right abuses, from child labour to mutilation, religious violence and so. Burma isn't any better. Do I need to mention Pakistan or Afghanistan? In Singapore they chop your head of if you have a joint. Sub Saharan Africa is filled with dictatorships... British loved to rekindle old rivalries and encouraged conflict between natives when it suited their interest.

So, no, regardless of what Brits like to think, Britain hasn't been a more just overlord than France or Netherlands.

How many functional liberal democracies are there in the former Ottoman empire? Probably only Turkey, and that because of some fervently Europhilic bloke back in the mists of time.

Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, Jordan...